Mixing It Up With Roger Olson

Recently, I interviewed theologian Roger Olson. You may know Olson from my book Beyond Evangelical, which he highly (and kindly) recommended. Here’s the interview.

For those who aren’t familiar with you, tell us about your ministry and the topics that you are most passionate about.

Roger Olson: I teach historical theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. I’m in my thirtieth year of teaching theology and previously taught it at Bethel College (now Bethel University) and (for two years) Oral Roberts University. I’m passionate about evangelical theology and Arminian theology—clearing up misconceptions about them and exploring what they really are. Both are widely misrepresented and misunderstood. My main area of interest and research, though, is modern/contemporary theology.

In my book, Beyond Evangelical, I quote you, Scot McKnight, and the late Michael Spencer quite a bit. There is no doubt that a growing number of evangelicals today are moving beyond the classical Left and Right categories. To your mind, what are the top 3 biggest obstacles that evangelicalism faces today with respect to how the world views us?

Roger Olson: 1) “Evangelical” is widely viewed as synonymous with “Religious Right” and conservative politics and social issues (anti-this and anti-that). 2) “Evangelical” is widely viewed as fundamentalist—a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible and a rigid adherence to traditional doctrine (“maximal conservatism”). 3) “Evangelical” is widely viewed as synonymous with legalistic, exclusivistic, intolerant Christianity.

The top 3 biggest obstacles evangelicalism faces today are:

1) Self-appointed spokesmen who manage to gain public credibility (as speaking for all evangelicals) and use that influence to exclude evangelicals they consider too “progressive” in their beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

2) Belief that “evangelicalism” is a closed movement with definite boundaries that have to be patrolled (e.g., “inerrancy”).

Many commentators have pointed out that the evangelical coalition is fracturing more today than ever before. What do you subscribe this problem to and how can it be resolved?

Roger Olson: Back in 1991 George Marsden announced an “irreparable split” in the evangelical movement caused largely by Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible (1976) and the ensuing controversy over inerrancy. He announced then that the term “evangelical” had lost its meaning as describing a transdenominational movement. (p. 76) He then went on to say that insofar as there is any movement left it is simply “sympathetic parallel manifestations of related traditions.” (p. 81) I’d say he was right then and his diagnosis is still true today. The evangelical movement of my youth, for example (1960s and early 1970s) is gone. But there is still an aroma left over from it—an ethos that lingers here and there. To me, “evangelical” now names an ethos, not a movement.

Some evangelical Christians who call themselves progressive have little tolerance for those who are a little further to the right than they are. The same is true for some evangelical Christians who call themselves conservative. Some have little tolerance for those who are a little further to the left than they are. In other words, some evangelicals on the left and the right cannot seem to tolerate those who take a middle position or a third path on issues. Have you seen this problem and is there a solution for it?

Roger Olson: Of course. Anyone familiar with the affinity groups that call themselves “evangelical” will have seen this phenomenon. But, in my opinion, it is mainly the conservatives who have shunned the progressives. Progessive evangelicals generally have a “big tent” view of evangelicalism. Conservatives are the ones who have used the rhetoric of exclusion to try to push more progressively minded evangelicals out and away, labeling us “post-evangelicals” and such.

Many years ago I met a man (we’ll call him Bob) who measured everything by a person’s theological vocabulary. (I talked about this recently in my blog series, Spiritual Conversational Styles.) A person could be an orthodox Christian who fits Mark Noll’s and David Bebbington’s definition of evangelical, but if that person didn’t describe their beliefs in the exact same terms that Bob used, then Bob would castigate them with the worst vitriol, even misrepresenting their views to others. In this regard, some have observed that the “word police” charge applies to both sides of the spectrum, left and right. What say you?

Roger Olson: I haven’t experienced that so much among the so-called “left” wing of evangelicalism. I have experienced it aplenty from the “right” wing. I could tell many stories of my unfortunate experiences with conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars who have gone out of their way to damage my reputation for no other reason than that they do not perceive me as with them in their attempt to exclude open theists, postfoundationalists, inclusivists, etc

If you had a paragraph of advice to give to evangelical Christians on the right, what would it be?

Thx. for the comment. You’d no doubt appreciate the ebook “Beyond Evangelical.”

RPierard

I wish that I could be as articulate in expressing my understanding of evangelicalism as Roger because he does such an outstanding job. But being a professional historian and not theologically trained, I lack the ability to do so. I agree wholeheartedly with what he affirms and I say in that wonderful 60’s phrase–RIGHT ON!

http://GoodReportMinistries.com Ivan A. Rogers

“I could tell many stories of my unfortunate experiences with conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars who have gone out of their way to damage my reputation for no other reason than that they do not perceive me as with them in their attempt to exclude open theists, postfoundationalists, inclusivists, etc”

Dr. Olson, I enjoyed reading your responses to Frank Viola’s interview and agree with everything you said. May I follow up with a sincere question of my own for you? In the above interview response you have shown some sympathy to the “inclusivists.” As you know, there are many evangelicals who have come to believe the concept of ‘universal salvation,’ while at the same time abandoning the doctrine of eternal conscious torture (hell). MY QUESTION: Being an “inclusivist” would you go as far as to include those evangelical-type brethren who have embraced the universal redemption of all humanity and/or have rejected the traditional doctrine of hell?

Eagle

I really enjoyed reading this…I read Michael Spencer’s “Mere Churchianity” and hovered around the Internet Monk for the past few years as a skeptic. Its still a loving community though I wish Michael were still with us.

Evangelical Christianity today is in a mess. It’s nothing but witch hunts with people out to decimiate each other. I look at both sides and feel sick, and I’m still angry that I was previously into reformed theology. Campus Crusade really sells neo-refomed theology. But as I’ve stepped away from faith and survey the spiritual landscape I’m amazed as to how many Christians don’t know what Christinaity is today.

Here in the Washington, D.C. area I pop up at differing churches to see if I can find one that is safe to ask difficult questions. A lot of evangelicals flip over hard questions of faith. In one non-denom church I visted the pastor was preaching that faith was about doctrine, doctrine, and doctrine. And how the outside world will know Christians by their doctrine. And I’m sitting there in the back wanting to shake my head and say, “No….Christians should be known by their love, it’s Muslims who are known by their doctrine…”

I think my time in the forest of agnosticsm is going to be a while….

rvs

Thanks for this. I find Olson’s point about “evangelical” being an ethos (more so than a movement, set of doctrines) to be especially intriguing.

Bart Breen

Two of my favorite people talking together is really great to see! I was at ORU when Roger taught there, but unfortunately didn’t have any classes with him at the time. I’ve kept up with and rediscovered him through the years and found him to be a thoughtful and straight-talking man who has a lot of good things to say. Thank you Frank, for providing this further insight into him and from him. I appreciate both of you!

http://www.religious-diplomacy.org/node/35 John W. Morehead

Frank, thank you so much for sharing this. I have enjoyed Olsen’s work and found it helpful in my theology classes in seminary in years past. I have experienced the concerns of very conservative Evangelicals, especially most recently in articulating a new theology and praxis of interreligious engagement. That series of writings, coupled with a positive (and balanced) review of Brian McLaren’s new book, have recently led to concerns that I might be liberal or postmodern. We might also keep in mind Jason Bivins’ thesis in Religion of Fear that Evangelicalism is obsessed with boundaries as a confrontational religious subculture. These dynamics contribute to the boundary maintenance conflicts we often see. I think Olsen’s offers a helpful way forward through this controversy for those with concerns on the Right and Left.